A Marine Corps Hollowed Out

Posted For: Rotorblade

The recent dismissal of the Army Chief of Staff has left Secretary of War Pete Hegseth having removed nearly all of the service chiefs who served during the Biden administration. Only one senior leader from that period remains in place, and some critics argue he should have been the first to go. Marine Corps Commandant General Eric Smith has drawn increasing criticism, with some believing he is not suited for the role.

Among the general and flag officers who were removed, several had been widely viewed as appointments tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Another was reportedly dismissed because of his close association with a former Secretary of Defense who strongly supported those policies. It is generally accepted that Pentagon leadership has the authority to choose military leaders who support its direction and priorities. What is harder to accept, critics say, is a situation where senior officials appear to mislead their civilian leadership.

That issue surfaced after a press conference held by Smith on January 15, 2025. During the event, he stated that the Marine Corps had never adopted DEI policies. At the same time, staff members were reportedly working urgently to dismantle existing DEI-related programs and remove references to them from official Marine Corps websites. Some observers question how Smith remained in his position after those statements. One possibility is that he told Hegseth and President Trump that he had simply continued policies put in place by his predecessor, who strongly supported DEI programs. However, critics note that Smith had already been commandant for more than a year by that point and had not made significant changes during that time.

Many within the Marine Corps community, including active duty personnel and veterans, were unconvinced by Smith’s explanation. Some believe that if the Pentagon conducted a command climate survey today, it might reveal widespread dissatisfaction with his leadership.

However, concerns about Smith’s performance extend beyond the DEI issue. When he assumed command in 2023, many Marines hoped he would reverse several controversial decisions made by his predecessor. Those decisions included eliminating the Corps’ tanks, reducing heavy engineering units, and removing school-trained snipers as part of a sweeping modernization plan known as “Force Design.” The concept focused on building smaller units equipped with missiles designed to target Chinese naval forces in the South China Sea.

Instead of reversing course, Smith continued to pursue that strategy. For those who had closely followed the Corps over the previous several years, this was not unexpected. Smith had been selected by his predecessor, General David Berger, who viewed him as someone likely to continue the transformation he had started. Berger argued in 2019 that large-scale amphibious assaults were no longer practical because modern missile threats made such operations too dangerous.

Yet current events have raised the possibility that Marines could be tasked with an amphibious assault on Iran’s Kharg Island. Such an operation would involve not only landing forces from the sea but also pushing into urban areas inland. Since the battle of Hue City during the Vietnam War, the Marine Corps has developed extensive expertise in urban warfare.

In the 1990s, the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory in Quantico worked extensively on developing tactics and equipment for fighting in densely built environments. Those efforts paid off during intense battles in Iraq, particularly in Fallujah and Ramadi. Key tools in those operations included tanks, heavy engineering units, and highly trained snipers.

During the Urban Warrior experiments conducted by the Warfighting Lab, the Marines also collaborated with aviation units to create highly precise weapons capable of destroying individual rooms rather than entire buildings. These weapons helped reduce civilian casualties during operations in Iraq. Reports also suggest that similar technology later helped Israeli forces limit civilian deaths in Gaza and southern Lebanon.

Many of those precision weapons were delivered by attack helicopters, another capability that was reduced under Berger’s restructuring plan. Fortunately, enough aircraft remain in service to still contribute if needed.

Urban combat tactics developed over the years often relied on tanks advancing ahead of infantry units. The tanks’ accurate main guns suppressed enemy fire while snipers monitored surrounding areas to counter opposing marksmen. Heavy engineering equipment, including armored bulldozers, could demolish fortified structures and clear debris from supply routes. Today, however, many of those assets are no longer part of the Marine Corps’ inventory.

Critics argue that Smith had an opportunity to reconsider those decisions when he became commandant in 2023 but chose instead to continue the existing plan. In doing so, they believe he placed a significant bet on the assumption that Berger’s vision was correct.

Despite these debates over strategy and equipment, one constant remains the determination and resilience of Marine infantry. Marines have long been known for carrying out their missions regardless of the resources available to them. Still, some observers worry that if key capabilities are missing, the cost could ultimately be paid by the young Marines sent into combat.

At this point, removing Smith may no longer be realistic. Instead, attention may turn to whoever eventually succeeds him. Many hope that the next commandant will reassess the direction of the Corps and restore some of the capabilities that were eliminated.

For now, a ceasefire has paused the immediate possibility of a Kharg Island operation. If negotiations continue, that pause may eliminate the need for such a mission entirely. If not, it may at least provide time for future Marine leadership to prepare for the kind of amphibious assault that Berger once declared impossible.

Original Source